GeForce GT 630 OEM vs Radeon R9 M275
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R9 M275 with GeForce GT 630 OEM, including specs and performance data.
R9 M275 outperforms GT 630 OEM by an impressive 67% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 837 | 976 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.07 | no data |
| Power efficiency | no data | 2.43 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | Venus | GK107 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 28 January 2014 (11 years ago) | 24 April 2012 (13 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $799.99 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 640 | 192 |
| Core clock speed | 900 MHz | 875 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 925 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,500 million | 1,270 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 50 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 37.00 | 14.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.184 TFLOPS | 0.336 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 16 |
| TMUs | 40 | 16 |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Laptop size | large | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 145 mm |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1000 MHz | 891 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 64 GB/s | 28.51 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | no data |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.1.126 |
| CUDA | - | 3.0 |
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | 24
+71.4%
| 14−16
−71.4%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 33.33 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| God of War | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10
+80%
|
5−6
−80%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
| Fortnite | 14−16
+75%
|
8−9
−75%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+75%
|
8−9
−75%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| God of War | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+85.7%
|
7−8
−85.7%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+83.3%
|
24−27
−83.3%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10
+80%
|
5−6
−80%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 50−55
+73.3%
|
30−33
−73.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Dota 2 | 27−30
+68.8%
|
16−18
−68.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
| Fortnite | 14−16
+75%
|
8−9
−75%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+75%
|
8−9
−75%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| God of War | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+85.7%
|
7−8
−85.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
+80%
|
5−6
−80%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+83.3%
|
24−27
−83.3%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10
+80%
|
5−6
−80%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Dota 2 | 27−30
+68.8%
|
16−18
−68.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+75%
|
8−9
−75%
|
| God of War | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+85.7%
|
7−8
−85.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
+80%
|
5−6
−80%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+83.3%
|
24−27
−83.3%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 14−16
+75%
|
8−9
−75%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 20−22
+100%
|
10−11
−100%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
+78.6%
|
14−16
−78.6%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
+71.4%
|
14−16
−71.4%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| God of War | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+77.8%
|
9−10
−77.8%
|
| Valorant | 12−14
+85.7%
|
7−8
−85.7%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| God of War | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
This is how R9 M275 and GT 630 OEM compete in popular games:
- R9 M275 is 71% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.66 | 1.59 |
| Recency | 28 January 2014 | 24 April 2012 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 1 GB |
R9 M275 has a 67.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.
The Radeon R9 M275 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 630 OEM in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R9 M275 is a notebook graphics card while GeForce GT 630 OEM is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
